DIALECTICAL
AND HISTORICAL MATERIALISM

byJ. V. Stalin

September 1938

Transcribed for the Internet by M.

Dialectical materialism
is the world outlook of the Marxist-Leninist party. It is called
dialectical materialism because its approach to the phenomena of
nature, its method of studying and apprehending them, is dialectical,
while its interpretation of the phenomena of nature, its conception
of these phenomena, its theory, is materialistic.

Historical materialism is the extension of the
principles of dialectical materialism to the study of social life, an
application of the principles of dialectical materialism to the
phenomena of the life of society, to the study of society and of its
history.

When describing their dialectical method, Marx and
Engels usually refer to Hegel as the philosopher who formulated the
main features of dialectics. This, however, does not mean that the
dialectics of Marx and Engels is identical with the dialectics of
Hegel. As a matter of fact, Marx and Engels took from the Hegelian
dialectics only its «rational kernel," casting aside its
Hegelian idealistic shell, and developed dialectics further so as to
lend it a modern scientific form.

"My dialectic method," says Marx, "is
not only different from the Hegelian, but is its direct opposite. To
Hegel, ... the process of thinking which, under the name of 'the
Idea,' he even transforms into an independent subject, is the
demiurgos (creator) of the real world, and the real world is only
the external, phenomenal form of 'the Idea.' With me, on the
contrary, the ideal is nothing else than the material world
reflected by the human mind and translated into forms of thought."
(Marx, Afterword to the Second German Edition of Volume I of
Capital.)

When describing their materialism, Marx and Engels
usually refer to Feuerbach as the philosopher who restored
materialism to its rights. This, however, does not mean that the
materialism of Marx and Engels is identical with Feuerbach's
materialism. As a matter of fact, Marx and Engels took from
Feuerbach's materialism its "inner kernel," developed it
into a scientific-philosophical theory of materialism and cast aside
its idealistic and religious-ethical encumbrances. We know that
Feuerbach, although he was fundamentally a materialist, objected to
the name materialism. Engels more than once declared that "in
spite of" the materialist "foundation," Feuerbach
"remained... bound by the traditional idealist fetters,"
and that "the real idealism of Feuerbach becomes evident as soon
as we come to his philosophy of religion and ethics." (Marx and
Engels, Vol. XIV, pp. 652-54.)

Dialectics comes from the Greek dialego, to
discourse, to debate. In ancient times dialectics was the art of
arriving at the truth by disclosing the contradictions in the
argument of an opponent and overcoming these contradictions. There
were philosophers in ancient times who believed that the disclosure
of contradictions in thought and the clash of opposite opinions was
the best method of arriving at the truth. This dialectical method of
thought, later extended to the phenomena of nature, developed into
the dialectical method of apprehending nature, which regards the
phenomena of nature as being in constant movement and undergoing
constant change, and the development of nature as the result of the
development of the contradictions in nature, as the result of the
interaction of opposed forces in nature.

In its essence, dialectics is the direct opposite of
metaphysics.

1) Marxist Dialectical Method

The principal features of the
Marxist dialectical method are as follows:

a) Nature Connected and Determined

Contrary to metaphysics, dialectics does not regard
nature as an accidental agglomeration of things, of phenomena,
unconnected with, isolated from, and independent of, each other, but
as a connected and integral whole, in which things, phenomena are
organically connected with, dependent on, and determined by, each
other.

The dialectical method therefore holds that no
phenomenon in nature can be understood if taken by itself, isolated
from surrounding phenomena, inasmuch as any phenomenon in any realm
of nature may become meaningless to us if it is not considered in
connection with the surrounding conditions, but divorced from them;
and that, vice versa, any phenomenon can be understood and explained
if considered in its inseparable connection with surrounding
phenomena, as one conditioned by surrounding phenomena.

b) Nature is a State of Continuous Motion and
Change

Contrary to metaphysics, dialectics holds that nature
is not a state of rest and immobility, stagnation and immutability,
but a state of continuous movement and change, of continuous renewal
and development, where something is always arising and developing,
and something always disintegrating and dying away.

The dialectical method therefore requires that
phenomena should be considered not only from the standpoint of their
interconnection and interdependence, but also from the standpoint of
their movement, their change, their development, their coming into
being and going out of being.

The dialectical method regards as important primarily
not that which at the given moment seems to be durable and yet is
already beginning to die away, but that which is arising and
developing, even though at the given moment it may appear to be not
durable, for the dialectical method considers invincible only that
which is arising and developing.

"All nature," says Engels, "from the
smallest thing to the biggest. from grains of sand to suns, from
protista (the primary living cells -- J. St.) to man, has its
existence in eternal coming into being and going out of being, in a
ceaseless flux, in unresting motion and change (Ibid., p. 484.)

Therefore, dialectics, Engels says, "takes
things and their perceptual images essentially in their
interconnection, in their concatenation, in their movement, in their
rise and disappearance." (Marx and Engels, Vol. XIV,' p. 23.)

c) Natural Quantitative Change Leads to
Qualitative Change

Contrary to metaphysics, dialectics does not regard
the process of development as a simple process of growth, where
quantitative changes do not lead to qualitative changes, but as a
development which passes from insignificant and imperceptible
quantitative changes to open' fundamental changes' to qualitative
changes; a development in which the qualitative changes occur not
gradually, but rapidly and abruptly, taking the form of a leap from
one state to another; they occur not accidentally but as the natural
result of an accumulation of imperceptible and gradual quantitative
changes.

The dialectical method therefore holds that the
process of development should be understood not as movement in a
circle, not as a simple repetition of what has already occurred, but
as an onward and upward movement, as a transition from an old
qualitative state to a new qualitative state, as a development from
the simple to the complex, from the lower to the higher:

"Nature," says Engels, "is the test
of dialectics. and it must be said for modern natural science that
it has furnished extremely rich and daily increasing materials for
this test, and has thus proved that in the last analysis nature's
process is dialectical and not metaphysical, that it does not move
in an eternally uniform and constantly repeated circle. but passes
through a real history. Here prime mention should be made of Darwin,
who dealt a severe blow to the metaphysical conception of nature by
proving that the organic world of today, plants and animals, and
consequently man too, is all a product of a process of development
that has been in progress for millions of years." (Ibid., p.
23.)

Describing dialectical development as a transition
from quantitative changes to qualitative changes, Engels says:

"In physics ... every change is a passing of
quantity into quality, as a result of a quantitative change of some
form of movement either inherent in a body or imparted to it. For
example, the temperature of water has at first no effect on its
liquid state; but as the temperature of liquid water rises or falls,
a moment arrives when this state of cohesion changes and the water
is converted in one case into steam and in the other into ice.... A
definite minimum current is required to make a platinum wire glow;
every metal has its melting temperature; every liquid has a definite
freezing point and boiling point at a given pressure, as far as we
are able with the means at our disposal to attain the required
temperatures; finally, every gas has its critical point at which, by
proper pressure and cooling, it can be converted into a liquid
state.... What are known as the constants of physics (the point at
which one state passes into another -- J. St.) are in most cases
nothing but designations for the nodal points at which a
quantitative (change) increase or decrease of movement causes a
qualitative change in the state of the given body, and at which,
consequently, quantity is transformed into quality." (Ibid.,
pp. 527-28.)

Passing to chemistry, Engels continues:

"Chemistry may be called the science of the
qualitative changes which take place in bodies as the effect of
changes of quantitative composition. his was already known to
Hegel.... Take oxygen: if the molecule contains three atoms instead
of the customary two, we get ozone, a body definitely distinct in
odor and reaction from ordinary oxygen. And what shall we say of the
different proportions in which oxygen combines with nitrogen or
sulphur, and each of which produces a body qualitatively different
from all other bodies !" (Ibid., p. 528.)

Finally, criticizing Dühring, who scolded Hegel
for all he was worth, but surreptitiously borrowed from him the
well-known thesis that the transition from the insentient world to
the sentient world, from the kingdom of inorganic matter to the
kingdom of organic life, is a leap to a new state, Engels says:

"This is precisely the Hegelian nodal line of
measure relations in which at certain definite nodal points, the
purely quantitative increase or decrease gives rise to a qualitative
leap, for example, in the case of water which is heated or cooled,
where boiling point and freezing point are the nodes at which --
under normal pressure -- the leap to a new aggregate state takes
place, and where consequently quantity is transformed into quality."
(Ibid., pp. 45-46.)

d) Contradictions Inherent in Nature

Contrary to metaphysics, dialectics holds that
internal contradictions are inherent in all things and phenomena of
nature, for they all have their negative and positive sides, a past
and a future, something dying away and something developing; and that
the struggle between these opposites, the struggle between the old
and the new, between that which is dying away and that which is being
born, between that which is disappearing and that which is
developing, constitutes the internal content of the process of
development, the internal content of the transformation of
quantitative changes into qualitative changes.

The dialectical method therefore holds that the
process of development from the lower to the higher takes place not
as a harmonious unfolding of phenomena, but as a disclosure of the
contradictions inherent in things and phenomena, as a "struggle"
of opposite tendencies which operate on the basis of these
contradictions.

"In its proper meaning," Lenin says,
"dialectics is the study of the contradiction within the
very essence of things." (Lenin, Philosophical
Notebooks, p. 265.)

Such, in brief, are the principal features of the
Marxist dialectical method.

It is easy to understand how immensely important is
the extension of the principles of the dialectical method to the
study of social life and the history of society, and how immensely
important is the application of these principles to the history of
society and to the practical activities of the party of the
proletariat.

If there are no isolated phenomena in the world, if
all phenomena are interconnected and interdependent, then it is clear
that every social system and every social movement in history must be
evaluated not from the standpoint of "eternal justice" or
some other preconceived idea, as is not infrequently done by
historians, but from the standpoint of the conditions which gave rise
to that system or that social movement and with which they are
connected.

The slave system would be senseless, stupid and
unnatural under modern conditions. But under the conditions of a
disintegrating primitive communal system, the slave system is a quite
understandable and natural phenomenon, since it represents an advance
on the primitive communal system

The demand for a bourgeois-democratic republic when
tsardom and bourgeois society existed, as, let us say, in Russia in
1905, was a quite understandable, proper and revolutionary demand;
for at that time a bourgeois republic would have meant a step
forward. But now, under the conditions of the U.S.S.R., the demand
for a bourgeois-democratic republic would be a senseless and
counterrevolutionary demand; for a bourgeois republic would be a
retrograde step compared with the Soviet republic.

Everything depends on the conditions, time and place.

It is clear that without such a historical
approach to social phenomena, the existence and development of the
science of history is impossible; for only such an approach saves the
science of history from becoming a jumble of accidents and an
agglomeration of most absurd mistakes.

Further, if the world is in a state of constant
movement and development, if the dying away of the old and the
upgrowth of the new is a law of development, then it is clear that
there can be no "immutable" social systems, no "eternal
principles" of private property and exploitation, no "eternal
ideas" of the subjugation of the peasant to the landlord, of the
worker to the capitalist.

Hence, the capitalist system can be replaced by the
socialist system, just as at one time the feudal system was replaced
by the capitalist system.

Hence, we must not base our orientation on the strata
of society which are no longer developing, even though they at
present constitute the predominant force, but on those strata which
are developing and have a future before them, even though they at
present do not constitute the predominant force.

In the eighties of the past century, in the period of
the struggle between the Marxists and the Narodniks, the proletariat
in Russia constituted an insignificant minority of the population,
whereas the individual peasants constituted the vast majority of the
population. But the proletariat was developing as a class, whereas
the peasantry as a class was disintegrating. And just because the
proletariat was developing as a class the Marxists based their
orientation on the proletariat. And they were not mistaken; for, as
we know, the proletariat subsequently grew from an insignificant
force into a first-rate historical and political force.

Hence, in order not to err in policy, one must look
forward, not backward.

Further, if the passing of slow quantitative changes
into rapid and abrupt qualitative changes is a law of development,
then it is clear that revolutions made by oppressed classes are a
quite natural and inevitable phenomenon.

Hence, the transition from capitalism to socialism
and the liberation of the working class from the yoke of capitalism
cannot be effected by slow changes, by reforms, but only by a
qualitative change of the capitalist system, by revolution.

Hence, in order not to err in policy, one must be a
revolutionary, not a reformist.

Further, if development proceeds by way of the
disclosure of internal contradictions, by way of collisions between
opposite forces on the basis of these contradictions and so as to
overcome these contradictions, then it is clear that the class
struggle of the proletariat is a quite natural and inevitable
phenomenon.

Hence, we must not cover up the contradictions of the
capitalist system, but disclose and unravel them; we must not try to
check the class struggle but carry it to its conclusion.

Hence, in order not to err in policy, one must pursue
an uncompromising proletarian class policy, not a reformist policy of
harmony of the interests of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, not
a compromisers' policy of the "growing" of capitalism into
socialism.

Such is the Marxist dialectical method when applied
to social life, to the history of society.

As to Marxist philosophical materialism, it is
fundamentally the direct opposite of philosophical idealism.

2) Marxist Philosophical Materialism

The principal features of Marxist
philosophical materialism are as follows:

a) Materialist

Contrary to idealism, which regards the world as the
embodiment of an "absolute idea," a "universal
spirit," "consciousness," Marx's philosophical
materialism holds that the world is by its very nature material,
that the multifold phenomena of the world constitute different forms
of matter in motion, that interconnection and interdependence of
phenomena as established by the dialectical method, are a law of the
development of moving matter, and that the world develops in
accordance with the laws of movement of matter and stands in no need
of a "universal spirit."

"The materialistic outlook on nature,"
says Engels, "means no more than simply conceiving nature just
as it exists, without any foreign admixture." (Marx and Engels,
Vol. XIV, p. 651.)

Speaking of the materialist views of the ancient
philosopher Heraclitus, who held that "the world, the all in
one, was not created by any god or any man, but was, is and ever will
be a living flame, systematically flaring up and systematically dying
down"' Lenin comments: "A very good exposition of the
rudiments of dialectical materialism." (Lenin, Philosophical
Notebooks, p. 318.)

b) Objective Reality

Contrary to idealism, which asserts that only our
consciousness really exists, and that the material world, being,
nature, exists only in our consciousness' in our sensations, ideas
and perceptions, the Marxist philosophical materialism holds that
matter, nature, being, is an objective reality existing outside and
independent of our consciousness; that matter is primary, since it is
the source of sensations, ideas, consciousness, and that
consciousness is secondary, derivative, since it is a reflection of
matter, a reflection of being; that thought is a product of matter
which in its development has reached a high degree of perfection,
namely, of the brain, and the brain is the organ of thought; and that
therefore one cannot separate thought from matter without committing
a grave error. Engels says:

"The question of the relation of thinking to
being, the relation of spirit to nature is the paramount question of
the whole of philosophy.... The answers which the philosophers gave
to this question split them into two great camps. Those who asserted
the primacy of spirit to nature ... comprised the camp of idealism.
The others, who regarded nature as primary, belong to the various
schools of materialism." (Marx, Selected Works, Vol. I,
p. 329.)

And further:

"The material, sensuously perceptible world to
which we ourselves belong is the only reality.... Our consciousness
and thinking, however supra-sensuous they may seem, are the product
of a material, bodily organ, the brain. Matter is not a product of
mind, but mind itself is merely the highest product of matter."
(Ibid., p. 332.)

Concerning the question of matter and thought, Marx
says:

"It is impossible to separate thought from
matter that thinks. Matter is the subject of all changes."
(Ibid., p. 302.)

Describing Marxist philosophical materialism, Lenin
says:

"Materialism in general recognizes objectively
real being (matter) as independent of consciousness, sensation,
experience.... Consciousness is only the reflection of being, at
best an approximately true (adequate, perfectly exact) reflection of
it." (Lenin, Vol. XIII, pp. 266-67.)

And further:

-- "Matter is that which, acting upon our
sense-organs, produces sensation; matter is the objective reality
given to us in sensation.... Matter, nature, being, the physical-is
primary, and spirit, consciousness, sensation, the psychical-is
secondary." (Ibid., pp. 119-20.)

-- "The world picture is a picture of how
matter moves and of how 'matter thinks.'" (Ibid., p.
288.)

-- "The brain is the organ of thought."
(Ibid., p. 125.)

c) The World and Its Laws Are Knowable

Contrary to idealism, which denies the possibility of
knowing the world and its laws, which does not believe in the
authenticity of our knowledge, does not recognize objective truth,
and holds that the world is full of "things-in-themselves"
that can never be known to science, Marxist philosophical materialism
holds that the world and its laws are fully knowable, that our
knowledge of the laws of nature, tested by experiment and practice,
is authentic knowledge having the validity of objective truth, and
that there are no things in the world which are unknowable, but only
things which are as yet not known, but which will be disclosed and
made known by the efforts of science and practice.

Criticizing the thesis of Kant and other idealists
that the world is unknowable and that there are
"things-in-themselves" which are unknowable, and defending
the well-known materialist thesis that our knowledge is authentic
knowledge, Engels writes:

"The most telling refutation of this as of all
other philosophical crotchets is practice, namely, experiment and
industry. If we are able to prove the correctness of our conception
of a natural process by making it ourselves, bringing it into being
out of its conditions and making it serve our own purposes into the
bargain, then there is an end to the Kantian ungraspable
'thing-in-itself.' The chemical substances produced in the bodies of
plants and animals remained such 'things-in-themselves' until
organic chemistry began to produce them one after another, whereupon
the 'thing-in-itself' became a thing for us, as, for instance,
alizarin, the coloring matter of the madder, which we no longer
trouble to grow ill the madder roots in the field, but produce much
more cheaply and simply from coal tar. For 300 years the Copernican
solar system was a hypothesis with a hundred, a thousand or ten
thousand chances to one in its favor, but still always a hypothesis.
But when Leverrier, by means of the data provided by this system,
not only deduced the necessity of the existence of an unknown
planet, but also calculated the position in the heavens which this
planet must necessarily occupy, and when Galle really found this
planet, the Copernican system was proved." (Marx, Selected
Works, Vol. I, p. 330.)

Accusing Bogdanov, Bazarov, Yushkevich and the other
followers of Mach of fideism (a reactionary theory, which prefers
faith to science) and defending the well-known materialist thesis
that our scientific knowledge of the laws of nature is authentic
knowledge, and that the laws of science represent objective truth,
Lenin says:

"Contemporary fideism does not at all reject
science; all it rejects is the 'exaggerated claims' of science, to
wit, its claim to objective truth. If objective truth exists (as the
materialists think), if natural science, reflecting the outer world
in human 'experience,' is alone capable of giving us objective
truth, then all fideism is absolutely refuted." (Lenin, Vol.
XIII, p. 102.)

Such, in brief, are the characteristic features of
the Marxist philosophical materialism.

It is easy to understand how immensely important is
the extension of the principles of philosophical materialism to the
study of social life, of the history of society, and how immensely
important is the application of these principles to the history of
society and to the practical activities of the party of the
proletariat.

If the connection between the phenomena of nature and
their interdependence are laws of the development of nature, it
follows, too, that the connection and interdependence of the
phenomena of social life are laws of the development of society, and
not something accidental.

Hence, social life, the history of society, ceases to
be an agglomeration of "accidents", for the history of
society becomes a development of society according to regular laws,
and the study of the history of society becomes a science.

Hence, the practical activity of the party of the
proletariat must not be based on the good wishes of "outstanding
individuals." not on the dictates of "reason,"
"universal morals," etc., but on the laws of development of
society and on the study of these laws.

Further, if the world is knowable and our knowledge
of the laws of development of nature is authentic knowledge, having
the validity of objective truth, it follows that social life, the
development of society, is also knowable, and that the data of
science regarding the laws of development of society are authentic
data having the validity of objective truths.

Hence, the science of the history of society, despite
all the complexity of the phenomena of social life, can become as
precise a science as, let us say, biology, and capable of making use
of the laws of development of society for practical purposes.

Hence, the party of the proletariat should not guide
itself in its practical activity by casual motives, but by the laws
of development of society, and by practical deductions from these
laws.

Hence, socialism is converted from a dream of a
better future for humanity into a science.

Hence, the bond between science and practical
activity, between theory and practice, their unity, should be the
guiding star of the party of the proletariat.

Further, if nature, being, the material world, is
primary, and consciousness, thought, is secondary, derivative; if the
material world represents objective reality existing independently of
the consciousness of men, while consciousness is a reflection of this
objective reality, it follows that the material life of society, its
being, is also primary, and its spiritual life secondary, derivative,
and that the material life of society is an objective reality
existing independently of the will of men, while the spiritual life
of society is a reflection of this objective reality, a reflection of
being.

Hence, the source of formation of the spiritual life
of society, the origin of social ideas, social theories, political
views and political institutions, should not be sought for in the
ideas, theories, views and political institutions themselves, but in
the conditions of the material life of society, in social being, of
which these ideas, theories, views, etc., are the reflection.

Hence, if in different periods of the history of
society different social ideas, theories, views and political
institutions are to be observed; if under the slave system we
encounter certain social ideas, theories, views and political
institutions, under feudalism others, and under capitalism others
still, this is not to be explained by the "nature", the
"properties" of the ideas, theories, views and political
institutions themselves but by the different conditions of the
material life of society at different periods of social development.

Whatever is the being of a society, whatever are the
conditions of material life of a society, such are the ideas,
theories political views and political institutions of that society.

In this connection, Marx says:

"It is not the consciousness of men that
determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being
that determines their consciousness." (Marx Selected Works,
Vol. I, p. 269.)

Hence, in order not to err in policy, in order not to
find itself in the position of idle dreamers, the party of the
proletariat must not base its activities on abstract "principles
of human reason", but on the concrete conditions of the material
life of society, as the determining force of social development; not
on the good wishes of "great men," but on the real needs of
development of the material life of society.

The fall of the utopians, including the Narodniks,
anarchists and Socialist-Revolutionaries, was due, among other things
to the fact that they did not recognize the primary role which the
conditions of the material life of society play in the development of
society, and, sinking to idealism, did not base their practical
activities on the needs of the development of the material life of
society, but, independently of and in spite of these needs, on "ideal
plans" and "all-embracing projects", divorced from the
real life of society.

The strength and vitality of Marxism-Leninism lies in
the fact that it does base its practical activity on the needs of the
development of the material life of society and never divorces itself
from the real life of society.

It does not follow from Marx's words, however, that
social ideas, theories, political views and political institutions
are of no significance in the life of society, that they do not
reciprocally affect social being, the development of the material
conditions of the life of society. We have been speaking so far of
the origin of social ideas, theories, views and political
institutions, of the way they arise, of the fact that the spiritual
life of society is a reflection of the conditions of its material
life. As regards the significance of social ideas, theories, views
and political institutions, as regards their role in history,
historical materialism, far from denying them, stresses the important
role and significance of these factors in the life of society, in its
history.

There are different kinds of social ideas and
theories. There are old ideas and theories which have outlived their
day and which serve the interests of the moribund forces of society.
Their significance lies in the fact that they hamper the development,
the progress of society. Then there are new and advanced ideas and
theories which serve the interests of the advanced forces of society.
Their significance lies in the fact that they facilitate the
development, the progress of society; and their significance is the
greater the more accurately they reflect the needs of development of
the material life of society.

New social ideas and theories arise only after the
development of the material life of society has set new tasks before
society. But once they have arisen they become a most potent force
which facilitates the carrying out of the new tasks set by the
development of the material life of society, a force which
facilitates the progress of society. It is precisely here that the
tremendous organizing, mobilizing and transforming value of new
ideas, new theories, new political views and new political
institutions manifests itself. New social ideas and theories arise
precisely because they are necessary to society, because it is
impossible to carry out the urgent tasks of development of the
material life of society without their organizing, mobilizing and
transforming action. Arising out of the new tasks set by the
development of the material life of society, the new social ideas and
theories force their way through, become the possession of the
masses, mobilize and organize them against the moribund forces of
society, and thus facilitate the overthrow of these forces, which
hamper the development of the material life of society.

Thus social ideas, theories and political
institutions, having arisen on the basis of the urgent tasks of the
development of the material life of society, the development of
social being, themselves then react upon social being, upon the
material life of society, creating the conditions necessary for
completely carrying out the urgent tasks of the material life of
society, and for rendering its further development possible.

In this connection, Marx says:

"Theory becomes a material force as soon as it
has gripped the masses." (Marx and Engels, Vol. I, p. 406.)

Hence, in order to be able to influence the
conditions of material life of society and to accelerate their
development and their improvement, the party of the proletariat must
rely upon such a social theory, such a social idea as correctly
reflects the needs of development of the material life of society,
and which is therefore capable of setting into motion broad masses of
the people and of mobilizing them and organizing them into a great
army of the proletarian party, prepared to smash the reactionary
forces and to clear the way for the advanced forces of society.

The fall of the "Economists" and the
Mensheviks was due, among other things, to the fact that they did not
recognize the mobilizing, organizing and transforming role of
advanced theory, of advanced ideas and, sinking to vulgar
materialism, reduced the role of these factors almost to nothing,
thus condemning the Party to passivity and inanition.

The strength and vitality of Marxism-Leninism is
derived from the fact that it relies upon an advanced theory which
correctly reflects the needs of development of the material life of
society, that it elevates theory to a proper level, and that it deems
it its duty to utilize every ounce of the mobilizing, organizing and
transforming power of this theory.

That is the answer historical materialism gives to
the question of the relation between social being and social
consciousness, between the conditions of development of material life
and the development of the spiritual life of society.

3) Historical Materialism.

It now remains to elucidate the
following question: What, from the viewpoint of historical
materialism, is meant by the "conditions of material life of
society" which in the final analysis determine the physiognomy
of society, its ideas, views, political institutions, etc.?

What, after all, are these "conditions of
material life of society," what are their distinguishing
features?

There can be no doubt that the concept "conditions
of material life of society" includes, first of all, nature
which surrounds society, geographical environment, which is one of
the indispensable and constant conditions of material life of society
and which, of course, influences the development of society. What
role does geographical environment play in the development of
society? Is geographical environment the chief force determining the
physiognomy of society, the character of the social system of man,
the transition from one system to another, or isn't it?

Historical materialism answers this question in the
negative.

Geographical environment is unquestionably one of the
constant and indispensable conditions of development of society and,
of course, influences the development of society, accelerates or
retards its development. But its influence is not the determining
influence, inasmuch as the changes and development of society proceed
at an incomparably faster rate than the changes and development of
geographical environment. in the space of 3000 years three different
social systems have been successively superseded in Europe: the
primitive communal system, the slave system and the feudal system. In
the eastern part of Europe, in the U.S.S.R., even four social systems
have been superseded. Yet during this period geographical conditions
in Europe have either not changed at all, or have changed so slightly
that geography takes no note of them. And that is quite natural.
Changes in geographical environment of any importance require
millions of years, whereas a few hundred or a couple of thousand
years are enough for even very important changes in the system of
human society.

It follows from this that geographical environment
cannot be the chief cause, the determining cause of social
development; for that which remains almost unchanged in the course of
tens of thousands of years cannot be the chief cause of development
of that which undergoes fundamental changes in the course of a few
hundred years

Further, there can be no doubt that the concept
"conditions of material life of society" also includes
growth of population, density of population of one degree or another;
for people are an essential element of the conditions of material
life of society, and without a definite minimum number of people
there can be no material life of society. Is growth of population the
chief force that determines the character of the social system of
man, or isn't it?

Historical materialism answers this question too in
the negative.

Of course, growth of population does influence the
development of society, does facilitate or retard the development of
society, but it cannot be the chief force of development of society,
and its influence on the development of society cannot be the
determining influence because, by itself, growth of population
does not furnish the clue to the question why a given social system
is replaced precisely by such and such a new system and not by
another, why the primitive communal system is succeeded precisely by
the slave system, the slave system by the feudal system, and the
feudal system by the bourgeois system, and not by some other.

If growth of population were the determining force of
social development, then a higher density of population would be
bound to give rise to a correspondingly higher type of social system.
But we do not find this to be the case. The density of population in
China is four times as great as in the U.S.A., yet the U.S.A. stands
higher than China in the scale of social development; for in China a
semi-feudal system still prevails, whereas the U.S.A. has long ago
reached the highest stage of development of capitalism. The density
of population in Belgium is I9 times as great as in the U.S.A., and
26 times as great as in the U.S.S.R. Yet the U.S.A. stands higher
than Belgium in the scale of social development; and as for the
U.S.S.R., Belgium lags a whole historical epoch behind this country,
for in Belgium the capitalist system prevails, whereas the U.S.S.R.
has already done away with capitalism and has set up a socialist
system.

It follows from this that growth of population is
not, and cannot be, the chief force of development of society, the
force which determines the character of the social system, the
physiognomy of society.

a) What Is the Chief Determinant Force?

What, then, is the chief force in the complex of
conditions of material life of society which determines the
physiognomy of society, the character of the social system, the
development of society from one system to another?

This force, historical materialism holds, is the
method of procuring the means of life necessary for human
existence, the mode of production of material values -- food,
clothing, footwear, houses, fuel, instruments of production, etc. --
which are indispensable for the life and development of society.

In order to live, people must have food, clothing,
footwear, shelter, fuel, etc.; in order to have these material
values, people must produce them; and in order to produce them,
people must have the instruments of production with which food,
clothing, footwear, shelter, fuel, etc., are produced, they must be
able to produce these instruments and to use them.

The instruments of production wherewith
material values are produced, the people who operate the
instruments of production and carry on the production of material
values thanks to a certain production experience and labor
skill -- all these elements jointly constitute the productive
forces of society.

But the productive forces are only one aspect of
production, only one aspect of the mode of production, an aspect that
expresses the relation of men to the objects and forces of nature
which they make use of for the production of material values. Another
aspect of production, another aspect of the mode of production, is
the relation of men to each other in the process of production, men's
relations of production. Men carry on a struggle against
nature and utilize nature for the production of material values not
in isolation from each other, not as separate individuals, but in
common, in groups, in societies. Production, therefore, is at all
times and under all conditions social production. In the production
of material values men enter into mutual relations of one kind or
another within production, into relations of production of one kind
or another. These may be relations of co-operation and mutual help
between people who are free from exploitation; they may be relations
of domination and subordination; and, lastly, they may be
transitional from one form of relations of production to another. But
whatever the character of the relations of production may be, always
and in every system they constitute just as essential an element of
production as the productive forces of society.

"In production," Marx says, "men not
only act on nature but also on one another. They produce only by
co-operating in a certain way and mutually exchanging their
activities. In order to produce, they enter into definite
connections and relations with one another and only within these
social connections and relations does their action on nature, does
production, take place." (Marx and Engels, Vol. V, p. 429.)

Consequently, production, the mode of production,
embraces both the productive forces of society and men's relations of
production, and is thus the embodiment of their unity in the process
of production of material values.

b) The First Feature of Production

The first feature of production is that it
never stays at one point for a long time and is always in a state of
change and development, and that, furthermore, changes in the mode of
production inevitably call forth changes in the whole social system,
social ideas, political views and political institutions -- they call
forth a reconstruction of the whole social and political order. At
different stages of development people make use of different modes of
production, or, to put it more crudely, lead different manners of
life. In the primitive commune there is one mode of production, under
slavery there is another mode of production, under feudalism a third
mode of production and so on. And, correspondingly, men's social
system, the spiritual life of men, their views and political
institutions also vary.

Whatever is the mode of production of a society, such
in the main is the society itself, its ideas and theories, its
political views and institutions.

Or, to put it more crudely, whatever is man's manner
of life such is his manner of thought.

This means that the history of development of society
is above all the history of the development of production, the
history of the modes of production which succeed each other in the
course of centuries, the history of the development of productive
forces and of people's relations of production.

Hence, the history of social development is at the
same time the history of the producers of material values themselves,
the history of the laboring masses, who are the chief force in the
process of production and who carry on the production of material
values necessary for the existence of society.

Hence, if historical science is to be a real science,
it can no longer reduce the history of social development to the
actions of kings and generals, to the actions of "conquerors"
and "subjugators" of states, but must above all devote
itself to the history of the producers of material values, the
history of the laboring masses, the history of peoples.

Hence, the clue to the study of the laws of history
of society must not be sought in men's minds, in the views and ideas
of society, but in the mode of production practiced by society in any
given historical period; it must be sought in the economic life of
society.

Hence, the prime task of historical science is to
study and disclose the laws of production, the laws of development of
the productive forces and of the relations of production, the laws of
economic development of society.

Hence, if the party of the proletariat is to be a
real party, it must above all acquire a knowledge of the laws of
development of production, of the laws of economic development of
society.

Hence, if it is not to err in policy, the party of
the proletariat must both in drafting its program and in its
practical activities proceed primarily from the laws of development
of production from the laws of economic development of society.

c) The Second Feature of Production

The second feature of production is that its
changes and development always begin with changes and development of
the productive forces, and in the first place, with changes and
development of the instruments of production. Productive forces are
therefore the most mobile and revolutionary element of productions
First the productive forces of society change and develop, and then,
depending on these changes and in conformity with them,
men's relations of production, their economic relations, change.
This, however, does not mean that the relations of production do not
influence the development of the productive forces and that the
latter are not dependent on the former. While their development is
dependent on the development of the productive forces, the relations
of production in their turn react upon the development of the
productive forces, accelerating or retarding it. In this connection
it should be noted that the relations of production cannot for too
long a time lag behind and be in a state of contradiction to the
growth of the productive forces, inasmuch as the productive forces
can develop in full measure only when the relations of production
correspond to the character, the state of the productive forces and
allow full scope for their development. Therefore, however much the
relations of production may lag behind the development of the
productive forces, they must, sooner or later, come into
correspondence with -- and actually do come into correspondence with
-- the level of development of the productive forces, the character
of the productive forces. Otherwise we would have a fundamental
violation of the unity of the productive forces and the relations of
production within the system of production, a disruption of
production as a whole, a crisis of production, a destruction of
productive forces.

An instance in which the relations of production do
not correspond to the character of the productive forces, conflict
with them, is the economic crises in capitalist countries, where
private capitalist ownership of the means of production is in glaring
incongruity with the social character of the process of production,
with the character of the productive forces. This results in economic
crises, which lead to the destruction of productive forces.
Furthermore, this incongruity itself constitutes the economic basis
of social revolution, the purpose of which IS to destroy the existing
relations of production and to create new relations of production
corresponding to the character of the productive forces.

In contrast, an instance in which the relations of
production completely correspond to the character of the productive
forces is the socialist national economy of the U.S.S.R., where the
social ownership of the means of production fully corresponds to the
social character of the process of production, and where, because of
this, economic crises and the destruction of productive forces are
unknown.

Consequently, the productive forces are not only the
most mobile and revolutionary element in production, but are also the
determining element in the development of production.

Whatever are the productive forces such must be the
relations of production.

While the state of the productive forces furnishes
the answer to the question -- with what instruments of production do
men produce the material values they need? -- the state of the
relations of production furnishes the answer to another question --
who owns the means of production (the land, forests, waters,
mineral resources, raw materials, instruments of production,
production premises, means of transportation and communication,
etc.), who commands the means of production, whether the whole of
society, or individual persons, groups, or classes which utilize them
for the exploitation of other persons, groups or classes?

Here is a rough picture of the development of
productive forces from ancient times to our day. The transition from
crude stone tools to the bow and arrow, and the accompanying
transition from the life of hunters to the domestication of animals
and primitive pasturage; the transition from stone tools to metal
tools (the iron axe, the wooden plow fitted with an iron coulter,
etc.), with a corresponding transition to tillage and agriculture; a
further improvement in metal tools for the working up of materials,
the introduction of the blacksmith's bellows, the introduction of
pottery, with a corresponding development of handicrafts, the
separation of handicrafts from agriculture, the development of an
independent handicraft industry and, subsequently, of manufacture;
the transition from handicraft tools to machines and the
transformation of handicraft and manufacture into machine industry;
the transition to the machine system and the rise of modern
large-scale machine industry -- such is a general and far from
complete picture of the development of the productive forces of
society in the course of man's history. It will be clear that the
development and improvement of the instruments of production was
effected by men who were related to production, and not independently
of men; and, consequently, the change and development of the
instruments of production was accompanied by a change and development
of men, as the most important element of the productive forces, by a
change and development of their production experience, their labor
skill, their ability to handle the instruments of production.

In conformity with the change and development of the
productive forces of society in the course of history, men's
relations of production, their economic relations also changed and
developed.

Main types of Relations of Production

Five main types of relations of production are
known to history: primitive communal, slave, feudal, capitalist and
socialist.

The basis of the relations of production under the
primitive communal system is that the means of production are
socially owned. This in the main corresponds to the character of the
productive forces of that period. Stone tools, and, later, the bow
and arrow, precluded the possibility of men individually combating
the forces of nature and beasts of prey. In order to gather the
fruits of the forest, to catch fish, to build some sort of
habitation, men were obliged to work in common if they did not want
to die of starvation, or fall victim to beasts of prey or to
neighboring societies. Labor in common led to the common ownership of
the means of production, as well as of the fruits of production. Here
the conception of private ownership of the means of production did
not yet exist, except for the personal ownership of certain
implements of production which were at the same time means of defense
against beasts of prey. Here there was no exploitation, no classes.

The basis of the relations of production under the
slave system is that the slave-owner owns the means of production, he
also owns the worker in production -- the slave, whom he can sell,
purchase, or kill as though he were an animal. Such relations of
production in the main correspond to the state of the productive
forces of that period. Instead of stone tools, men now have metal
tools at their command; instead of the wretched and primitive
husbandry of the hunter, who knew neither pasturage nor tillage,
there now appear pasturage tillage, handicrafts, and a division of
labor between these branches of production. There appears the
possibility of the exchange of products between individuals and
between societies, of the accumulation of wealth in the hands of a
few, the actual accumulation of the means of production in the hands
of a minority, and the possibility of subjugation of the majority by
a minority and the conversion of the majority into slaves. Here we no
longer find the common and free labor of all members of society in
the production process -- here there prevails the forced labor of
slaves, who are exploited by the non-laboring slave-owners. Here,
therefore, there is no common ownership of the means of production or
of the fruits of production. It is replaced by private ownership.
Here the slaveowner appears as the prime and principal property owner
in the full sense of the term.

Rich and poor, exploiters and exploited, people with
full rights and people with no rights, and a fierce class struggle
between them -- such is the picture of the slave system.

The basis of the relations of production under the
feudal system is that the feudal lord owns the means of production
and does not fully own the worker in production -- the serf, whom the
feudal lord can no longer kill, but whom he can buy and sell.
Alongside of feudal ownership there exists individual ownership by
the peasant and the handicraftsman of his implements of production
and his private enterprise based on his personal labor. Such
relations of production in the main correspond to the state of the
productive forces of that period. Further improvements in the
smelting and working of iron; the spread of the iron plow and the
loom; the further development of agriculture, horticulture,
viniculture and dairying; the appearance of manufactories alongside
of the handicraft workshops -- such are the characteristic features
of the state of the productive forces.

The new productive forces demand that the laborer
shall display some kind of initiative in production and an
inclination for work, an interest in work. The feudal lord therefore
discards the slave, as a laborer who has no interest in work and is
entirely without initiative, and prefers to deal with the serf, who
has his own husbandry, implements of production, and a certain
interest in work essential for the cultivation of the land and for
the payment in kind of a part of his harvest to the feudal lord.

Here private ownership is further developed.
Exploitation is nearly as severe as it was under slavery -- it is
only slightly mitigated. A class struggle between exploiters and
exploited is the principal feature of the feudal system.

The basis of the relations of production under the
capitalist system is that the capitalist owns the means of
production, but not the workers in production -- the wage laborers,
whom the capitalist can neither kill nor sell because they are
personally free, but who are deprived of means of production and) in
order not to die of hunger, are obliged to sell their labor power to
the capitalist and to bear the yoke of exploitation. Alongside of
capitalist property in the means of production, we find, at first on
a wide scale, private property of the peasants and handicraftsmen in
the means of production, these peasants and handicraftsmen no longer
being serfs, and their private property being based on personal
labor. In place of the handicraft workshops and manufactories there
appear huge mills and factories equipped with machinery. In place of
the manorial estates tilled by the primitive implements of production
of the peasant, there now appear large capitalist farms run on
scientific lines and supplied with agricultural machinery

The new productive forces require that the workers in
production shall be better educated and more intelligent than the
downtrodden and ignorant serfs, that they be able to understand
machinery and operate it properly. Therefore, the capitalists prefer
to deal with wage-workers, who are free from the bonds of serfdom and
who are educated enough to be able properly to operate machinery.

But having developed productive forces to a
tremendous extent, capitalism has become enmeshed in contradictions
which it is unable to solve. By producing larger and larger
quantities of commodities, and reducing their prices, capitalism
intensifies competition, ruins the mass of small and medium private
owners, converts them into proletarians and reduces their purchasing
power, with the result that it becomes impossible to dispose of the
commodities produced. On the other hand, by expanding production and
concentrating millions of workers in huge mills and factories,
capitalism lends the process of production a social character and
thus undermines its own foundation, inasmuch as the social character
of the process of production demands the social ownership of the
means of production; yet the means of production remain private
capitalist property, which is incompatible with the social character
of the process of production.

These irreconcilable contradictions between the
character of the productive forces and the relations of production
make themselves felt in periodical crises of over-production, when
the capitalists, finding no effective demand for their goods owing to
the ruin of the mass of the population which they themselves have
brought about, are compelled to burn products, destroy manufactured
goods, suspend production, and destroy productive forces at a time
when millions of people are forced to suffer unemployment and
starvation, not because there are not enough goods, but because there
is an overproduction of goods.

This means that the capitalist relations of
production have ceased to correspond to the state of productive
forces of society and have come into irreconcilable contradiction
with them.

This means that capitalism is pregnant with
revolution, whose mission it is to replace the existing capitalist
ownership of the means of production by socialist ownership.

This means that the main feature of the capitalist
system is a most acute class struggle between the exploiters and the
exploited.

The basis of the relations of production under the
socialist system, which so far has been established only in the
U.S.S.R., is the social ownership of the means of production. Here
there are no longer exploiters and exploited. The goods produced are
distributed according to labor performed, on the principle: "He
who does not work, neither shall he eat." Here the mutual
relations of people in the process of production are marked by
comradely cooperation and the socialist mutual assistance of workers
who are free from exploitation. Here the relations of production
fully correspond to the state of productive forces; for the social
character of the process of production is reinforced by the social
ownership of the means of production.

For this reason socialist production in the U.S.S.R.
knows no periodical crises of over-production and their accompanying
absurdities.

For this reason, the productive forces here develop
at an accelerated pace; for the relations of production that
correspond to them offer full scope for such development.

Such is the picture of the development of men's
relations of production in the course of human history.

Such is the dependence of the development of the
relations of production on the development of the productive forces
of society, and primarily, on the development of the instruments of
production, the dependence by virtue of which the changes and
development of the productive forces sooner or later lead to
corresponding changes and development of the relations of production.

"The use and fabrication of instruments of
labor," says Marx, "although existing in the germ among
certain species of animals, is specifically characteristic of the
human labor-process, and Franklin therefore defines man as a
tool-making animal. Relics of bygone instruments of labor possess
the same importance for the investigation of extinct economical
forms of society, as do fossil bones for the determination of
extinct species of animals. It is not the articles made, but how
they are made that enables us to distinguish different economical
epochs. Instruments of labor not only supply a standard of the
degree of development to which human labor has attained, but they
are also indicators of the social conditions under which that labor
is carried on." (Marx, Capital, Vol. I, 1935, p. 121.)

And further:

-- "Social relations are closely bound up with
productive forces. In acquiring new productive forces men change
their mode of production; and in changing their mode of production,
in changing the way of earning their living, they change all their
social relations. The hand-mill gives you society with the feudal
lord; the steam-mill, society with the industrial capitalist."
(Marx and Engels, Vol. V, p. 564.)

-- "There is a continual movement of growth in
productive forces, of destruction in social relations, of formation
in ideas; the only immutable thing is the abstraction of movement."
(Ibid., p. 364.)

Speaking of historical materialism as formulated in
The Communist Manifesto, Engels says:

"Economic production and the structure of
society of every historical epoch necessarily arising therefrom
constitute the foundation for the political and intellectual history
of that epoch; ... consequently (ever since the dissolution of the
primeval communal ownership of land) all history has been a history
of class struggles, of struggles between exploited and exploiting,
between dominated and dominating classes at various stages of social
development; ... this struggle, however, has now reached a stage
where the exploited and oppressed class (the proletariat) can no
longer emancipate itself from the class which exploits and oppresses
it (the bourgeoisie), without at the same time for ever freeing the
whole of society from exploitation, oppression and class
struggles...." (Engels' Preface to the German Edition of the
Manifesto.)

d) The Third Feature of Production

The third feature of production is that the
rise of new productive forces and of the relations of production
corresponding to them does not take place separately from the old
system, after the disappearance of the old system, but within the old
system; it takes place not as a result of the deliberate and
conscious activity of man, but spontaneously, unconsciously,
independently of the will of man It takes place spontaneously and
independently of the will of man for two reasons.

Firstly, because men are not free to choose one mode
of production or another, because as every new generation enters life
it finds productive forces and relations of production already
existing as the result of the work of former generations, owing to
which it is obliged at first to accept and adapt itself to everything
it finds ready-made in the sphere of production in order to be able
to produce material values.

Secondly, because, when improving one instrument of
production or another, one clement of the productive forces or
another, men do not realize, do not understand or stop to reflect
what social results these improvements will lead to, but only think
of their everyday interests, of lightening their labor and of
securing some direct and tangible advantage for themselves.

When, gradually and gropingly, certain members of
primitive communal society passed from the use of stone tools to the
use of iron tools, they, of course, did not know and did not stop to
reflect what social results this innovation would lead to; they did
not understand or realize that the change to metal tools meant a
revolution in production, that it would in the long run lead to the
slave system. They simply wanted to lighten their labor and secure an
immediate and tangible advantage; their conscious activity was
confined within the narrow bounds of this everyday personal interest.

When, in the period of the feudal system, the young
bourgeoisie of Europe began to erect, alongside of the small guild
workshops, large manufactories, and thus advanced the productive
forces of society, it, of course, did not know and did not stop to
reflect what social consequences this innovation would lead
to; it did not realize or understand that this "small"
innovation would lead to a regrouping of social forces which was to
end in a revolution both against the power of kings, whose favors it
so highly valued, and against the nobility, to whose ranks its
foremost representatives not infrequently aspired. It simply wanted
to lower the cost of producing goods, to throw larger quantities of
goods on the markets of Asia and of recently discovered America, and
to make bigger profits. Its conscious activity was confined within
the narrow bounds of this commonplace practical aim.

When the Russian capitalists, in conjunction with
foreign capitalists, energetically implanted modern large-scale
machine industry in Russia, while leaving tsardom intact and turning
the peasants over to the tender mercies of the landlords, they, of
course, did not know and did not stop to reflect what social
consequences this extensive growth of productive forces would lead
to; they did not realize or understand that this big leap in the
realm of the productive forces of society would lead to a regrouping
of social forces that would enable the proletariat to effect a union
with the peasantry and to bring about a victorious socialist
revolution. They simply wanted to expand industrial production to the
limit, to gain control of the huge home market, to become
monopolists, and to squeeze as much profit as possible out of the
national economy.

Their conscious activity did not extend beyond their
commonplace, strictly practical interests.

Accordingly, Marx says:

"In the social production of their life (that
is. in the production of the material values necessary to the life
of men -- J. St.), men enter into definite relations that are
indispensable and independent of their will, relations of
production which correspond to a definite stage of development of
their material productive forces." (Marx, Selected Works,
Vol. I, p 269).

This, however, does not mean that changes in the
relations of production, and the transition from old relations of
production to new relations of production proceed smoothly, without
conflicts, without upheavals. On the contrary such a transition
usually takes place by means of the revolutionary overthrow of the
old relations of production and the establishment of new relations of
production. Up to a certain period the development of the productive
forces and the changes in the realm of the relations of production
proceed spontaneously independently of the will of men. But that is
so only up to a certain moment, until the new and developing
productive forces have reached a proper state of maturity After the
new productive forces have matured, the existing relations of
production and their upholders -- the ruling classes -- become that
"insuperable" obstacle which can only be removed by the
conscious action of the new classes, by the forcible acts of these
classes, by revolution. Here there stands out in bold relief the
tremendous role of new social ideas, of new political
institutions, of a new political power, whose mission it is to
abolish by force the old relations of production. Out of the conflict
between the new productive forces and the old relations of
production, out of the new economic demands of society, there arise
new social ideas; the new ideas organize and mobilize the masses; the
masses become welded into a new political army, create a new
revolutionary power, and make use of it to abolish by force the old
system of relations of production, and to firmly establish the new
system. The spontaneous process of development yields place to the
conscious actions of men, peaceful development to violent upheaval,
evolution to revolution.

"The proletariat," says Marx, "during
its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of
circumstances, to organize itself as a class...by means of a
revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps
away by force the old conditions of production...." (Manifesto
of the Communist Party, 1938, p. 52.)

And further:

-- "The proletariat will use its political
supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to
centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the State,
i.e., of the proletariat organized as the ruling class; and to
increase the total of productive forces as rapidly as possible."
(Ibid., p. 50 )

-- "Force is the midwife of every old society
pregnant with a new one." (Marx, Capital, Vol. I, 1955,
p. 603.)

Here is the formulation -- a formulation of genius --
of the essence of historical materialism given by Marx in 1859 in his
historic Preface to his famous book, A Contribution to the
Critique of Political Economy:

"In the social production of their life, men
enter into definite relations that are indispensable and independent
of their will, relations of production which correspond to a
definite stage of development of their material productive forces.
The sum total of these relations of production constitutes the
economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which rises a
legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite
forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of material
life conditions the social, political and intellectual life process
in general. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their
being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines
their consciousness. At a certain stage of their development, the
material productive forces of society come in conflict with the
existing relations of production, or -- what is but a legal
expression for the same thing -- with the property relations within
which they have been at work hitherto. From forms of development of
the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters. Then
begins an epoch of social revolution. With the change of the
economic foundation the entire immense superstructure is more or
less rapidly transformed. In considering such transformations a
distinction should always be made between the material
transformation of the economic conditions of production, which can
be determined with the precision of natural science, and the legal,
political, religious, aesthetic or philosophic -- in short,
ideological forms in which men become conscious of this conflict and
fight it out. Just as our opinion of an individual is not based on
what he thinks of himself, so can we not judge of such a period of
transformation by its own consciousness; on the contrary this
consciousness must be explained rather from the contradictions of
material life, from the existing conflict between the social
productive forces and the relations of production. No social order
ever perishes before all the productive forces for which there is
room in it have developed; and new, higher relations of production
never appear before the material conditions of their existence have
matured in the womb of the old society itself. Therefore mankind
always sets itself only such tasks as it can solve; since looking at
the matter more closely, it will always be found that the task
itself arises only when the material conditions for its solution
already exist or are at least in the process of formation."
(Marx, Selected Works, Vol. I, pp. 269-70.)

Such is Marxist materialism as applied to social
life, to the history of society.

Such are the principal features of dialectical and
historical materialism.